myob_spend_money_prepare_create

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors, but it only states 'High-risk approval required,' which adds a risk flag. It doesn't explain the prepare workflow, whether a draft is created, if it can be undone, or how it interacts with the approval and commit tools.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, but the first phrase largely repeats the tool name. It earns points for having no waste, but could add more structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an open object parameter and no schema descriptions; the description does not compensate with instructions or context about the approval workflow. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid request from this description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description says nothing about json_body or business_id. With schema coverage at 0%, there is no explanation of what the json_body should contain, leaving the agent to guess the structure of a spend-money transaction.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as preparing spend-money transaction creation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like myob_receive_money_prepare_create. However, 'prepare' is not elaborated, so it doesn't fully clarify the staging nature beyond what the name implies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the generic myob_entity_prepare_create or myob_raw_prepare_mutation, nor does it mention the eventual commit/approval steps. The 'High-risk approval required' statement is a caution, not a usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.